Here we go again (gay marriage)

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:30 pm

Kulaf wrote:He who stands for everything.....stands for nothing. Or something like that.

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

Revelations I think.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:33 pm

Give me liberty, or give me a credit card for that SALE at PENNY'S! oooh, super!

Geez guys. The platitudes are flying yet nothing's getting said.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:37 pm

Relbeek Einre wrote:Give me liberty, or give me a credit card for that SALE at PENNY'S! oooh, super!

Geez guys. The platitudes are flying yet nothing's getting said.

Thank you for adding to the void, that which is nothingness, complete in its absence.

I'm focusing on the Zen of Rants.

Kulaf · Post by **Kulaf** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:43 pm

Relbeek Einre wrote:Give me liberty, or give me a credit card for that SALE at PENNY'S! oooh, super!

Geez guys. The platitudes are flying yet nothing's getting said.

I'm too bust nominating you for player of the week for that spin juke move in avoiding the whole bestiality issue as a morality law.

Kulaf · Post by **Kulaf** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:43 pm

bust = busy

Stupid fingers!

Aabe · Post by **Aabe** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:45 pm

Klast you know what? I really am a nice guy. And I'm gonna do you a favor unless all your spewing has been a troll.

You either are pro-gay rights or gay yourself. I am unsure and it really doesn't matter to me.

So, if I were gay or took up the banner to further gay rights, particularly gay marriage my strategy would be the following.

1. Never rant, poke my finger in peoples faces and call them ignorant for not agreeing with my side.

2. Never use an emotionally based arguement, except to contrast.

3. Since you have it out for elephants, lets use the saying. How do you eat an elephant? one bite at a time.

4. Start at the root of the issue and educate. Begin by having good reliable studies done on adoption and gay familys. Good enough that the law makers will conceed you the point and the debate is only on one issue. Is it harmful or not. I think it has been proven to not be harmful, not something I am up on, but take to every state. (Don't think it is solved if only a few liberal states accept it.) Get it passed everywhere. Make sure it gets some publicity, not quietly passed so the people don't realize you have proved your point. Remove it completely from the table.

Next get domestic agreements, avoid the M word that provokes too many people for religious reasons, get it pased, make it the only issue, keep churches out it, calling it the M word usually gets them involved. This step is where lots of other issues come up, how many can be in the agreement ect, get it ironed out and solved. But get that issue resolved alone. Get the law makers and the public to agree. If it is irrefutable, eventually you will get it. Make sure public debates happen and people even if the don't agree can see your side of the issue. (can't visit partners in hospital, ect) Get it passed country wide.

If you have to take a limited agreement in the begining take what you can get, then when people see the world didn't fall apart, come back for more.

In time you will have achieved all the legal rights of a marriage and educatied the people. Then perhaps, when legally you are on equal footing with marriage, you can approach the churches,.those that have strong veiws may never accept it, those that don't have valid arguements eventually will grant you that status I would imagine.

5. Don't try to ram the whole elephant down in one bite. It provokes it to an emotional level. It's too easy to side track, with all the issues that lay there, because you didn't clear the table first. When you have to deal with lots of issues at once, the probability of you achieving what you want if far diminished.

Some people don't really want to solve a problem, they just like to complain about it. I honestly don't know where you fall in all this. But if it is something you truely want to solve, I recommend you think about this post for a while. It might have something you can use.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 4:20 pm

bust = busy

Had it right the first time.

Sorry I didn't bite on the whole bestiality thing. It's a very long and involved discussion and it's not really germane to this, and I just didn't want to get sidetracked.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 4:30 pm

Kulaf wrote:
Relbeek Einre wrote:Give me liberty, or give me a credit card for that SALE at PENNY'S! oooh, super!

Geez guys. The platitudes are flying yet nothing's getting said.
I'm too bust nominating you for player of the week for that spin juke move in avoiding the whole bestiality issue as a morality law.

Beek makes a big deal about about others doing that.

Klast Brell · Post by **Klast Brell** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 4:39 pm

I'll go on record as a straight man. I am married to a lovely woman. Our second wedding anniversary is coming up in about a month. As a point of rant board trivia my groomsmen were Relbeek, Eidolon, Maltheos, Sic Tim, and Leewei.

We have had dozens of threads arguing about the slippery slope. Bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, incest, polygamy, and every other squick you can think of. We have talked about the people who might get married solely to game the system and get benefits they don’t deserve. It’s been done. The former is just a slippery slope argument and the latter applies to straights already. (Getting married for the green card and divorcing for the tax break are examples you may be familiar with) that’s why I asked a different question.

When I hear people talking about "defending marriage” I ask what will happen to marriage if they don't defend it? What will happen to my marriage if gays are allowed to marry? Are you married? Are your parents? Do you have friends who are married? What possible harm can gays getting hitched do to those relationships? Nothing and you know it.

Aabe · Post by **Aabe** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 5:24 pm

Klast Brell wrote:I'll go on record as a straight man. I am married to a lovely woman. Our second wedding anniversary is coming up in about a month. As a point of rant board trivia my groomsmen were Relbeek, Eidolon, Maltheos, Sic Tim, and Leewei.

We have had dozens of threads arguing about the slippery slope. Bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, incest, polygamy, and every other squick you can think of. We have talked about the people who might get married solely to game the system and get benefits they don’t deserve. It’s been done. The former is just a slippery slope argument and the latter applies to straights already. (Getting married for the green card and divorcing for the tax break are examples you may be familiar with) that’s why I asked a different question.

When I hear people talking about "defending marriage” I ask what will happen to marriage if they don't defend it? What will happen to my marriage if gays are allowed to marry? Are you married? Are your parents? Do you have friends who are married? What possible harm can gays getting hitched do to those relationships? Nothing and you know it.

I am glad you have a happy marrage and sounds like you have a fun circle of friends, must have been a wild reception LOL.

I agree marriage is abused and not in very good shape over all. Our current culture doesn't seem to be trying to fix it very fast and many children are paying a price for it. Not enough education before people pick mates and not enough effort once they do.

But my point was, this is not a single issue. And until you make people believe it won't hurt children and society as we know it won't fall apart. They won't care or seriously listen about the rights of gay people to marriage.

Klast Brell wrote:To kick off the argument i'll ask our conservatives this:

In what way does "gay marriage" harm "straight marriage"?.

IMO you picked a low priority issue for most non gay people of the gay marriage debate. That appeared to be simplifing the arguement to a single issue and a low priority one at that.

I just noticed the line "To kick off the argument..", dang that puts your second line in a different context than if the second line stood alone.

Hmm.. sorry Klast I read only the last line when I read your post, your introduction was less inflamatory and more inviting of discussion than the way I read it. My bad. =(

vaulos · Post by **vaulos** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 5:26 pm

I think it is cute how Klast refers to his gay lover as "a lovely woman", even before the operation.

Garrdor · Post by **Garrdor** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 9:56 pm

GAYS ARE STUPID,

JESUS RULES

Mukik · Post by **Mukik** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 12:38 am

This is beyond retarded..its a lawyers wet dream

.1 institute marriage being defined as a contract between 1 man 1 woman, husband being defined as 1 male. 2. wife is determined as 1. female. draft up the procedure, get it voted on after spending thousands of man hours and resources to get it lobbyed all the way to the top...hell maybe even have a few banquets for fund raising/gratitous sex.
2. have bill 09012005-a subsection c. written in to include any state not conforming to said law, will be denied (delete federal program here). funding.
3. one lawyer decides that the role of husband having to be male is discrimminatory in nature and that a female should be able to fill said role of the contract without prejudice to her sex, as it is the cause of woman sufferage that said person should be able to be filled by the job be it unconditional of gender, race, creed, or even with some creativity genus of species..
4. loose court battle after spending millions of tax dollars for lobbying and more gratuitoius sex parties to change the minds of the narrow but it still doesnt work.
5. next year they get creative, and go for a heterosexual "family friendly " couple pre marriage to try to sue for role violation, they want the man to act as wife and the wife to act as husband and argue that they need to be indescrimminate of the roles..she should be able to be husband and he should be able to be wife. they added rider subsection d to have the genders nondisclosed however they have to be seperate.
6. reverse roll wins in the courts, the general populace doesnt take notice that c's subsectoin 1. covers the fact that a man can be labelled wife eventhough subsection d is clarifying the fact the genders still have to be opposite.
7. creatively a gay lesbian couple enters into a marriage contract with one then suing for the ability of husband to be filled by carpet muncher number one. they win and try to push it to the federal level. much gratiutious sex parties and conventoins are held and the law is repealed all together.
8. we are back to where we are now, cept we have less money do to old and influential people having gratiutous sex with our tax dollars.

moral of the story

let em get married and buy me some nachos with some of that saved money..biotch.

Jarochai Alabaster · Post by **Jarochai Alabaster** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:44 am

Quote:
Seriously though, the whole debate comes down to morality freaks who don't know the first thing about being decent human beings.

Quote:
People hate gay women and men so much

Quote:
Really sucks when someone you hates wants to be equal to you doesn't it.

These kinds of quotes are the death of the argument to those opposed to gay marriage for any number of reasons having nothing to do with hate. Money, tradition, simple logic, desire to see a reform beyond the scope of marriage, etc are matters of principle, preference, and practicality. Attributing unsavory motivations like hate in blanket statements against those who disagree with you is itself hatemongering.

It's really too bad that those quotes are true. Principle? Preference? Practicality? What it all boils down to is "I personally disapprove of your life, therefore I'm going to do everything in my power to hinder your progress as equal human beings." Attributing unsavory motives to those who have...unsavory motives is not hatemongering. Refusing to submit to bigots is not hatemongering. Calling it like it is is not hatemongering.
The only thing in this entire issue that actually is hatemongering is those obsessed enough with dictating other peoples' lives to try and legislate their own personal morality onto everyone else.
Not everyone who is opposed to gay mairrage conducts themselves in such a blatantly hateful fasion, of course. That does not, however, change the very real fact that they are doing what they can (from simply voting on State Constitutional Amendments to devoting entire web sites to the idea that God hates fags) to hinder the progression of gays as equal citizens.

Fact. Those of us for gay mairrage are not attempting to negatively impact the lives and homes of anyone else.
Fact. Those of us opposed to gay mairrage are attempting to either recreate or maintain a state of inequality. Wether they acknowledge it or not, wether they give a shit or not, they are supporting and maintaining a state that negatively impacts the lives of millions of their fellow Americans.

I'm sorry, but there's really no other way to look at it. Anyone who is actually opposed to gay mairrage enough to so much as vote for a Constitutional ban is a prick. It's plain as day, crystal clear really. These are people who would fuck over their neighbors, their family, their friends. They'd screw over people who have nothing against them, who want only to be given the same government protections and benefits any other couple has at their disposal.
I simply don't understand. This is such a small hurdle, but appearantly the majority of the country is still incapable of jumping it. Shocking, really. The only explaination is that they're either stupid or douche nozzles. I'm gonna guess both.

Aabe · Post by **Aabe** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 9:07 am

Jarochai Alabaster wrote:[Fact. Those of us for gay mairrage are not attempting to negatively impact the lives and homes of anyone else.
Fact. Those of us opposed to gay mairrage are attempting to either recreate or maintain a state of inequality. Wether they acknowledge it or not, wether they give a shit or not, they are supporting and maintaining a state that negatively impacts the lives of millions of their fellow Americans.

Fact: There is a movement afoot to tighten marrage and make divorce more painful because there is a perception that children matter and the current culture is screwing them by having an environment that allows way more than they should to be robed of having two caring parents.

Fact: people fear the unknown

Fact: Your arguement coming from "ITS ONLY RIGHT, ITS FIGHTING INEQUALITY" will never convince joe six-pack to jump on board with you and get a permanent law and cultural change. You may get the law on a few times through the courts, but next time the pendulum swings conservative you may lose it again if you dont educate/convince the masses.

Fact: You don't address the fears of the people against you, you will never get what you really want.

Fact: saying fact dont make it so.

Jarochai Alabaster wrote:I'm sorry, but there's really no other way to look at it. Anyone who is actually opposed to gay mairrage enough to so much as vote for a Constitutional ban is a prick. It's plain as day, crystal clear really. These are people who would fuck over their neighbors, their family, their friends. They'd screw over people who have nothing against them, who want only to be given the same government protections and benefits any other couple has at their disposal.

I'm sorry, but there are lots of ways people can perceive it, until you can open your closed point of veiw and see what they fear, you will never address their issues and win them to your cause.

It's plain as day, crystal clear really, or this issue would have been settled in your favor long ago. (if in fact there is no bad effects you haven't bother to consider)

Sadly people that argue like you, let the real bigots (which are a minority in my opinion) stir the pot against you. Untill you can figure that out you will do little to help your cause.

You keep hammering this as a single issue, you might as well go beat your head against a very hard wall. At least you strengthen your neck muscles which is more than you will get this this argument.

Riggen · Post by **Riggen** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:57 am

Jarochai, that's a remarkably closed-minded attitude for a liberal. But then it's a lot easier to just slap a label of "bigot" on those who see things differently so you can dehumanize and dismiss them rather than actually addressing their concerns.

My bottom line concern, for example, is that changing the nature of marriage to allow gays to marry without first eliminating discrimination based on marital status will exacerbate the inequities that those who remain single will face. There's no hate there. None. No matter how much you want there to be, there just isn't. There's just the concern that not only will it be taking from the rich to give to the poor, it'll be taking from the poorer to give to the poor. Listening to you flail around with cries of "bigot" does nothing to solve that issue. I might add that solving it would be of immense benefit to all unmarried people, gay or straight.

Riddle me this: You profess to want to an inequity fixed for gays. I want to see a greater form of that inequality fixed for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. Which is more bigoted?

Garrdor · Post by **Garrdor** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:51 pm

Love and let love.

Yes, this means you redneck conservative republicans too.

Jarochai Alabaster · Post by **Jarochai Alabaster** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 12:03 am

Aabe,

Fact: There is a movement afoot to tighten marrage and make divorce more painful because there is a perception that children matter and the current culture is screwing them by having an environment that allows way more than they should to be robed of having two caring parents.

You do realize that single parents can raise children, right? You do also realize that lesbian couples have artificial ensemenation at their disposal, right? Or that gay men can adopt? That grandparents, aunts and uncles, hell even older brothers and sisters wind up raising children? In all actual reality, gay mairrage will have little to no effect on how many kids are raised in gay households, because a mairrage liscence doesn't make it any easier to use a turkey baster, and as far as I know wouldn't effect the cost of adopting a child. And if an adoption agency is willing to let a gay couple adopt a child, they'll do so mairrage liscence or no. This argument has absolutely nothing to do with kids, and anyone who actually sat down and thought it out would realize this. There are some who believe that nationwide legalization of gay mairrage will actually reduce the number of children raised by gay parents, but that's en entire other can of worms and I'm trying not to let this derail. Besides, I'm not sure if I buy it or not. =p

Fact: people fear the unknown

And I know people fear the unknown. Why do people fear the unknown? Usually because they're too stupid to properly educate themselves about what they fear.

Fact: Your arguement coming from "ITS ONLY RIGHT, ITS FIGHTING INEQUALITY" will never convince joe six-pack to jump on board with you and get a permanent law and cultural change. You may get the law on a few times through the courts, but next time the pendulum swings conservative you may lose it again if you dont educate/convince the masses.

When did I say I was trying to convince anyone of anything here? I change opinions on a regular basis in real life, but this is a fucking message board. No one changes anyone's mind here.

Fact: You don't address the fears of the people against you, you will never get what you really want.

If you met me - if anyone who's never had gay friends met me - you'd never know I was gay until I said so. I don't act it, I don't look it, I don't sound it. Most people are jaw-droppingly surprised when I tell them. This is how I address peoples' fears, by shattering the stereotypes associated with being gay. I'm by no means "normal," or any close approximation. I'm a 20-something white male, who'se most prominent features are an overly friendly attitude and a vague resemblance to a pin cushion. The last thing anyone expects is to hear that I'm an ass-pirate. And that's exactly how I've changed minds. A number of people have gone from gay-bashing (literally bashing) homophobes to recognizing that for all it's worth, I'm just like everyone else. One of them actually wound up questioning his own sexuality for a good while. You forget, some of the most outspoken homophobes are trying to convince themself more than anyone else that they hate fags. I'm not saying all homophobes are gay, I'm not even saying most or a lot. I'm saying some, as in a small percentage.

Fact: saying fact dont make it so.

Congratulations. For figuring that out, you get a cookie.

I'm sorry, but there are lots of ways people can perceive it, until you can open your closed point of veiw and see what they fear, you will never address their issues and win them to your cause.

Sure, people can percieve it however they want. That doesn't make them right. I see what they fear all too well, because as I'm sure you would have figured, I've been on the recieving end of it.
Consider this. When someone uses God as an excuse for their view of something, it's pretty much impossible to change their mind. I can address the issues of fear someone has, I can correct them on all the negative stereotypes, point out all the innaccuracies in the propaganda being spread by hate mongers. But even if I can convince them that all of that is wrong, that it's lies or blown out of proportion, they will never get over the fact - the belief - that God says being gay is wrong, and therefore we cannot possibly allow the heathens to marry. As I said, I'm not here (on the Rants board) to win anyone to my cause. Honestly, I could give a fuck. What I'm doing here, for all intents and purposes, is ranting.

It's plain as day, crystal clear really, or this issue would have been settled in your favor long ago. (if in fact there is no bad effects you haven't bother to consider)

Just like the issues of slavery, segregation, women's rights to vote, and any other civil equality fight was won overnight. Please. You're smarter than this.

Sadly people that argue like you, let the real bigots (which are a minority in my opinion) stir the pot against you. Untill you can figure that out you will do little to help your cause.

I'm not understanding you here. Are you saing that my argument empowers "the real bigots?" How so? And what, exactly, differentiates a real bigot from a fake one?

You keep hammering this as a single issue, you might as well go beat your head against a very hard wall. At least you strengthen your neck muscles which is more than you will get this this argument.

Psst. Note to Aabe. This is a single issue. At least it was, until gay mairrage opponents made it into a plethora of issues, most of which are slippery slope, idiotic bitch fits. The rest are nonissues. I have yet to see a valid concern regarding legalization of gay mairrage. Not one. Present any you want, and I'm all but certain I can point out how it's either completely unrelated, or completely moot. I've been able to reliably do so for every single concern I've seen put on the table to date.

Riggen,

I am not - repeat, not - a liberal. And dehumanize...you mean like when someone I knew from high school sees me walking, and throws beer cans at me from their car window while screaming "fag"? Or when my boss one day threatened to fire me because he didn't like hearing me refer to Gwildor as my boyfriend? Or how about the people who actually go out and pick up guys from the gay bar so they can take them out in the middle of nowhere, so their friends can beat the shit out of the disgusting faggot? Do you have any clue how many things I've been called? Do you have any idea what it's like for one of your best friends to tell you he can't spend time with you anymore because he doesn't want God to think he condones my life? You think calling someone a bigot is dehumanizing? When was the last time a group of fags went out and beat the shit out of someone for being straight?

My bottom line concern, for example, is that changing the nature of marriage to allow gays to marry without first eliminating discrimination based on marital status will exacerbate the inequities that those who remain single will face. There's no hate there. None. No matter how much you want there to be, there just isn't. There's just the concern that not only will it be taking from the rich to give to the poor, it'll be taking from the poorer to give to the poor. Listening to you flail around with cries of "bigot" does nothing to solve that issue. I might add that solving it would be of immense benefit to all unmarried people, gay or straight.

Would you care to elaborate on the discriminations you mentioned, and why they need to be fixed before any other change to the system? Until I know what you're talking about, I really can't comment.

Riddle me this: You profess to want to an inequity fixed for gays. I want to see a greater form of that inequality fixed for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. Which is more bigoted?

I would prefer to see inequality fixed for everyone as often as possible. But like I said, I'm completely unfamiliar with the inequality you're talking about, so I await your clarification.

Narith · Post by **Narith** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:36 am

By the way just a little side note. For those of you who think that banning gay marriage has 0 reprocussions, in Michigan due to the passage of the ban on gay marriage the state has revoked same sex benifits which they have had for over a decade now. This will affect not only state employees but college employees too. They estimate over 50,000 couples in Michigan will be affected.

So yes, denying cival rights does hurt people.

Cartumandua · Post by **Cartumandua** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:39 am

Torakus wrote:This fairly conservative, hetero, white male couldn't care less about the issue. I really don't see why gay couples calling their union "marriage" is such a big issue. If the church is ok with it, and agrees to marry two guys so they can legally drop anchor in poo bay, so be it.

The only problem I see coming down the road, is people like Partha and Relbeek screaming for the fed to stop providing any sort of financial support to community programs administered by churches that choose not to allow gay marriage. I see it openening the floodgates to a lot of litigation in this area.

But I still support the state recognizing gay marriage in the same way as hetero marriage.

Tora

Well you can sign me up for thinking paying churchs to provide necessary community services is a bad idea.

I think the more civil unions the better. The more people are morally and legally obligated to look out for each other, the less the government has to. And I couldn't care less what you call it, because in a few years everyone will call it marriage except a few diehards. You can't legislate language.